Journal of Indian and Buddhist Studies Vol. 41, No. 2, March 1993
Patajalayogaastravivarana
ns3.
17, Sphotasiddhi
k.27 and Brahmasutrabhasya
1.3.28
Kengo
HARIMOTO
I have once argued about a relation between Patanjalayogasastravivarana
(YVi)1 ascribed to Sankara and Vidhiviveka of Manclanamisra. And it has
already been noticed and reported that both YVi and SS quote and criticize
same verses from Kumarila's Mzmdmsaslokavdrttika
(SV)
31. The verses quoted
are Sphotavada, karikas 131-136 that form several syllogisms to refute
Sphota theory. YVi 3. 17 and SS k. 27 are the places to quote and criticize
them. Against Kumarila, Mandana and YVi-kara maintain sphota theory.
Regarding the readings of quoted verses, we find several places to draw
our attentions. Among them, reading of the end of k. 135 seems to be
significant. We find YVi and SS have the reading `dharmy-asiddhitah' 4).
Among the commentators on SV, only Umveka holds this readings. This
suggests us YVi-kara's nearness to Mandana since whomever Umveka was
identical with, he should have lived around Mandana's time6.
We can point some out of arguments in Yvi and SS. One is that there are
some places as if Mandana presupposes YVi.
And the second is that
YVi-kara is a more moderate vakya-sphotavadin
than Mandana. He admits
varna-s and samskasa-s except that they are meaning bearing units.
Sankara discusses about the nature of language at BSBh 1.3.239. Its
terminology and arguments are so resemble to those of YVi that we can
hardly pass by. Firstly, we can point out similarity between YVi-kara
and sphotavadin found in BSBh10. They have almost the same opinion
about the nature of language. But we should note that YVi-kara's opinion
is not much more than that of Yogabhasya (YBh)11. Hence, we do not
have to admit any influences of Sankara on YVi. Next, we find Safikara
exceeds YVi. Sankara's arguments stands on two points, i.e., that one can
-1138-(26) Patanjalayogasastravivarana 3. 17 (K. HARIMT)
identify each varna-s and that sphota-theory has to fall into inconvenience
while varna-theory is convenient12. YVi completely lacks these points -of
view.
Having reviewed BSBh, the difference between YVi's sphota theory and
that of SS becomes clearer. Though their standpoints are opposite, the
distance from YVi to BSBh is shorter than to SS since YVi-kara only
have to admit the identification of Varnas.
From above, we may be able to say two things. One is that YVi has
some significances that suggest its priority to SS and BSBh. The second is
that, as far as sphota-theory is concerned, we can place YVi closer to
BSBh than SS. It is still possible that YVi is a work of Sankara5).
1) Pat (sic) njala- Yogasutra-Bhasya Vivaranam of Sankara-bhagavatpada, ed. by P.S. Rama Sastri and S.R. Krishnamurthi Sastri, Madras Government Oriental Series No. XCIV, Madras 1952. On its title, see Wezler, A. (1983) "Philological Observations on the so-called Parafi jalayogasutrabhasyavivarana", IIJ 25, pp.
17ff.
2) See my paper "Vivarana-kara and Mandanamisra-A debate around isvara (Patafi jalayogasastravivarana ad YS I. 23-27 and Vidhiviveka I. kk. 19-24) -", Essays in Honor of Dr. Shoren Ihara on his Seventieth Birthday, Fukuoka 1991.
3) See Sphotasiddhi of Acarya Mandanamisra with the Gopalika of Rsiputra Para-mesvara, ed. by S. K. Ramanatha Sastri, Madras 1931, Intro., p. xv and Halbfass, W. (1991) "Sankara, the yoga of Patafijali", Tradition and Reflection, SUNY University of New York Press, New York, p. 206.
4) See YVi 268, 6 and SS 194, 2.
5) See Slokavarttika of Sri Kumarila Bhatta, with the Commentary Nyayaratnakara of Sri Parthasarathi Misra, published by Ratna Publications Varanasi 1978, 383, 28. And I could observe a xerox copy of Transcript of Kasika on Sphota-vada, preserved in Adyar Library as TR 66, in favor of Dr. Omae. The transcript is also referred as No.38. G.5 in Descriptive Catalogue of Sanskrit Manuscript
in the Adyar Library, Vol. IX,-Mimamsd and Advaita Vedanta, Madras 1952, pp. 6-7. And see Slokavarttikavyakhyd, Tdtparyatikd of Umveka Bhatta, ed. by S.K. Ramanatha Sastri, Revised by K. Kun juni Raja and R. Thangaswamy,
Madras, Revised ed. , Madras 1971, 473, 6.
6) See S. Kuppuswami Sastri, Brahmasiddhi by Acarya Mandanamisra, with mentary by Sankhapani, reprinted by Sri Satguru Publications, Delhi 1984,
-1137-Patanjalayogasastravivarana 3.17 (K. HARIMOTO) (27) troduction, p.lvi and K. Rama Pisharoti, "Introductory Note", Tattvabiindu by
Vacaspatimisra with Tattvavibhavand by Rsiputra Paramesvara, ed. by V.A. Ramaswami Sastri, Annamalai University Sanskrit Series No. 3, Madras 1936, pp. 44-48. And cf. Kunhan Raja, Preface and Introduction to Slokavarttikavya-khya, Tatparyatika of Umveka Bhatta. If all the tradition were right, Umveka, Mandana, Visvarupa, Suresvara, Bhavabhuti has been all identical.
7) See SS Intro. xv, 5-6 For example, in the critique against k. 133, meaning of the word sva- in SS is somewhat ambiguous while in YVi, the meaning of 'sva-' is clear. (See SS 199, 3, YVi 270,14-5, and cf. Gopalika, 200, 10-13). And in the arguments around k. 133, though YVi-kara arrogates Kumarila's verses altered or not, he leaves k. 133. untouched. This is the only exception for
Yvi-kara. On the other hand, for Mandana too, k. 133 is an exception. But for him, the exception is that he arrogate Kumarila's syllogism presented in k. 133. He shows a very opposite syllogism using the same reason as Kumarila (SS 203,2
-204, 1). If we should assume one of two works was posterior to the other, which is likely to be whether one make up all the rest or whether one make up the only case the other left.? Next case is in arguments around k. 136. There, YVi-kara uses the same reason to prove very opposite conclusion to that of Kumarila., To read Mandana's argument knowing that is interesting. He says that a clever man does not use a reason like that which can be applied
to both what he wishes to prove and what he does not (SS 208,1,-2). According to Mandana, YVi-kara also is not a clever man. Mandana presupposes a syllo-gism of YVi-kara's kind here though he does not explicitly mention.
8) SS up to k. 27 is an offense to Kumarila.. Mandana thoroughly assaults the opinion of Kumarila. And the reason why YVi-kara claims sphota theory is that since varna-s composing a word are plural, they cannot signify a meaning which is single entity for YVi, see YVi 265, 224etc.
9) BSBh 322,18-330, 8 He first presents an opinion of a Spohtavadin (323,1-324, 12) and claims varnavada criticizing sphotavada (324, 12-330, 8).
10) In particular, that in both the word ekabuddhivisaya' plays an important, role that both considers sphota as pratyaksa, usage of the words like jhatiti, and mechanism of understanding the meaning should be observed. See S. Ihara
(1987) "Yoga-gakuha no Sphota-setsu", Mikkyoubunka vol. 74, Tokyo 165, pp. 1-11 and Masaaki Hattori "Yogabhasya 1.17", Touhougaku-Ronshuu, Tokyo, pp. 1-17.
11) See BSBh 330, 4-6.
12) Cf. Gelblum, T. (1992), Notes on an English Translation of the Yogasutrabad-syavivarana, BSOAS, pp. 76-89.
<Key Words> Patanjalayogasastravivarana, Sankara, Mandanamisra
(Graduate Student, Kyushu University)
